> From: James W. Kilgore > > So it appears that even telnet would not work. I looked at the > Java based 5250 > emulator from Mochasoft that runs as an applet in a browser, but > it appears to > still be talking to the iSeries telnet server. I'm guessing that > IBM's telnet > server, although a batch job itself, only talks to some > interactive component, > maybe the QT3REQIO component of QWSGET that I see in the program > call stack. > > So does this mean that I'm pretty much stuck with using a browser > or some thick > client c/s approach? James, I do all my development on a model 270 with zero interactive CPW. As long as I am using one session at a time, there's no problem. There's also no problem switching between multiple sessions, provided none are doing anything CPU intensive - I regularly have three or for sessions up, and hop between them. However, if I, for example, start a mass compile interactively on one screen, and then try editing on another, the machine will lock up. Of course, for a single user, the answer is simply to submit long-running tasks to batch, and most of the time that's sufficient. That's not to say it's all sweetness and light. There are a few things I've found that will cause the machine to bog down, even on a single session. Holding the page down key to scroll through a long spool file is one way to bog the machine down. In fact, any repetitive large-scale screen I/O has a tendency to occasionally slow the machine down to a crawl. At that point, the only solution is to wait a few seconds for the machine to "cool down", and then go on with your business. Far more annoying is the occasional habit the debugger has of seizing up. This primarily happens if you try to single step through a piece of code with a whole bunch of F5's queued up in your type-ahead (I think F5 is single step - I forget). It's especially bad when debugging a batch job, for some reason. It seems that the machine gets very confused and thinks there are two interactive jobs and WHAM up goes the CFINT. You're right in assuming it's the QWSGET that's doing it. From what I understand, any calls to the workstation functions causes the interactive bit to get set in the job (this is the bit that the infamous FAST400 cleared). Any technique that uses telnet or screen scraping will be seen as an interactive session. That's the side benefit of my approach; the jobs run in batch, and don't use the workstation functions, so they in effect stay "below the radar" of the CFINT governor. So, your two basic approaches are to either rewrite your business logic completely into true servers, or else update your I/O routines to use an API along the lines of my server/client design. Joe Pluta www.plutabrothers.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.